Foes take new shot at PISTOL initiative

Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2006 | 7:14 a.m.

The opposition took another stab Tuesday at persuading the Nevada Supreme Court to strike the eminent domain initiative from the Nov. 7 ballot.

Attorneys for Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights Inc., a coalition of local government agencies and business groups, filed a brief asking the high court to reconsider its decision last week to keep a scaled-down version of the initiative on the ballot.

In striking down five of the initiative's 14 provisions, the Supreme Court significantly changed the version of the measure that was circulated to qualify for the ballot, the attorneys argued. As a result, the brief added, the measure should be removed from the ballot because it does not comply with constitutional requirements aimed at ensuring that the same version of an initiative circulated among voters appears on the ballot.

The attorneys reminded the Supreme Court that last week it tossed out a ballot initiative that sought to limit government spending because the proponents filed a slightly different version with the Nevada secretary of state than the one presented to the voters. Supporters of the Tax and Spending Control for Nevada measure have vowed to make another attempt to put the measure before voters in the future.

In their 11-page brief, the attorneys fighting the eminent domain initiative wrote: "The newly fashioned version of the initiative is considerably different from the version filed with the court and circulated - far more different than the one-word difference which resulted in removal of the TASC initiative from the ballot.

"Because there is no way of knowing with any certainty if those who signed the initiative in its original form would have signed it in its presently modified form, the integrity of the electoral process is called into serious question."

But former District Judge Don Chairez, a co-author of the ballot initiative and Republican candidate for attorney general, said he does not believe the Nevada Supreme Court will buy that argument.

That's because one of the provisions that the high court left intact states: "Any provision contained in this section shall be deemed a separate and freestanding right and shall remain in full force and effect should any other provision contained in this section be stricken for any reason."

Chairez called that a "bullet-proof clause."

"The opponents are wasting a lot of time," he said. "There is no way the court will rule any differently than they did the other day."

In their papers, the attorneys fighting the petition also asked the Supreme Court to remove a provision in the initiative that says property owners aren't "liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action."

That authority should remain in the hands of the courts, the attorneys argued.

But Chairez said the provision should be retained because it would discourage the government from threatening to sue landowners and claiming that the property owners "could get stuck" with the government's legal fees.

Opponents of the eminent domain initiative - which seeks to protect the rights of property owners by limiting the conditions under which government could acquire private land for public projects - warn that it could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and undermine local governments' ability to keep pace with booming growth in Southern Nevada.

The ballot question is being funded by the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL. Most of the group's money has come from Americans for Limited Government, a Chicago-based libertarian organization headed by New York real estate mogul Howard Rich.